Thank you! You know, we have received a number of comments and even complaints about Prof. Stump's article, since she seems to be defending the music of the St. Louis Jesuits. I would like to talk a bit about how this article came about. After my piece on the SLJ's came out, she wrote a letter that was alarming in its content. In short, she was incredibly offended. Now, this was a surprise to me since she is probably the nation's leading medievalist in the philosophy world, a brilliant and thoughtful person. Her reaction to my piece reminded me, again, about the power of music and its mystical capacity to move people. I have my own views on their music, and they were completely different from hers. We began to correspond and explore this issue together. Finally she withdrew her letter and send this very thoughtful--though incomplete, in my view--article for publication. This was very exciting since the piece was solid (again, but flawed) and provides an excellent starting point for discussion. Meanwhile, in preparing the issue, we also had several articles on aesthetics that actually weigh in on areas that were not addressed in the Stump piece, so there balance is certainly there.

W. Mahrt favored running her piece as a way of engaging critical questions of the day. What's more, though she begins here piece with a note in defense of SLJ and a criticism of me (flattering!) her piece contains enough that is valuable independent of that issue.

Jeffrey, I ultimately regarded Professor Stumps' article with a similar dismissive attitude I garnered over the years of slogging through "Pastoral Musician" articles: "All hat and no cowboy."
I am amazed at how many "experts" can wax prolific about certain types and aspects of music, in this case the inherent beauty the author presumably praises in that of the SLJ's, but never actually cite one title, or text, or elemental compositional trait to illustrate and buttress her contention and dialectic! I am actually quite sympathetic to her premise, but I would have cited, for example, John Foley's "May We Praise You" with commentary to abet my argument. Or I might have contrasted divergent works of the same composer, such as Bob Dufford's "Like a Shepherd" versus "Be Not Afraid" in order to articulate what aspects I deem to be in keeping with my "paradigm" of beauty.
But for page after page in that article, nothing of the sort appears. So, at some point without a tangible, contextual example of practical music, the words "pendantic....didactic....sophistry, etc." start distracting me away from following the author's line of reason.
On the other hand, the article by the professional musician from Florida held my interest from start to finish (without the need to be specific) because she perfectly captured snapshots of how decision-makers such as clerics and musicians actually go about their business, and why and how the average PIP responds. It should be mandatory reading.

I agree that the proof is in the listening.

I recall sitting in a diocesan workshop for about 6 or 7 house, blah blah blah blah. Full active conscious, full active conscious -- like we were being trained by the Red Guard. Finally, in the last 20 mins of the workshop, we heard music that was supposedly suitable. Sounded like easy listening rejects from the music loop at the Dentist office.

But it was very important to her that the point about the SLJ stay in there and be up top. I think she is friends with one of them, and she was very hurt by my article, which of course made me sad. As I told her, I don't like their music but my point wasn't just to bash them and what they did. I was sincerely seeking to understand how it came to be that their music had such an incredible impact on American parish life. I wanted to understand. I thought I had some insights and put them in print. But I'm sure that I was far from writing the whole truth about this event.

I needed a good reminder that we are, after all, writing about matters that are very important to people, and that these matters do involve real people. The obligations of Christian charity apply to everyone without exception. Nor should issues of liturgical music turn on issues of taste. In other words, my own taste should have nothing to do with it.

I can understand what JVN is saying. It could be misleading to those who are still trying to figure out what authentic liturgical music SHOULD be (such as the author).

Do the other points of view prefer other music to chant?

I think what JVN is saying is that devoting 14 pages of SM to something that leads to a 'faulty' conclusion gives too much credence to a particular 'point of view' especially when it goes against the very meaning of liturgical music, which is what the entire article is trying to validate.

Please allow me to digress. There is no blame.

It is the choice of the magazine to print whatever they feel will contribute to the mission of the CMAA. I am simply pointing out that it is a hefty amount of pages that were 'given' to express a flawed point of view. The magazine only comes out quarterly, so space in SM is valuable, or should I say, at a premium. I just feel that in this day and age when there is so much confusion about the nature of authentic liturgical music, I now look to SM and the CMAA to model the ideal in sacred and especially liturgical music. In other words, being that most of us struggle with the cancer of the very musics that do not belong in the Mass, it would be best to promote with utmost clarity what kind of constructive course one can build to return to that which is the ideal.

I showed up to the Colloquium in 2005. I felt like I stumbled out of the dessert into an oasis. For those of you who have always had the Church's perspective, the proper support, and held to the true ideal, you must realize that you hold a torch; a torch that very few hold can weild. It is a great responsibility and an honor to know the people of CMAA. I wished I had met them decades ago. I am remorseful that I didn't know about them, or the truth of sacred music, and lost so much time and direction in my life as a musician in the Church.

So, my perspective is somewhat slanted in that I have been too long without, and I am hungry to rediscover the 'burried treasure'. SM and CMAA represent a treasure chest of sorts. When I 'open' the chest, I am expecting to find nothing but gold.

Ahhhhhhhhhh... correction received.

This was a rebuttal. I now see that explained in the first paragraph. This will drive me back to your article of 2006 once again.

If I may refer to another article in SM -- thanks to Bill and Jeff for getting my copy to me! -- Lorenzo Candelaria misses, or rather oversimplifies, the central meaning of Guerrero's Ave virgo sanctissima. The motet was never likely intended for liturgical use as an antiphon, so there was no need to "sidestep" the liturgical designation of the text/chant. Rather this motet was the icon of the Spanish Immaculatist movement, which was centered in Seville. The litany of the text is, well a litany of the symbols for the Immaculate Conception, which was a hotly debated topic of the day. Rather he offers a rather obvious conclusion about the motet -- it's about Mary. Even when sung (the chant) in its liturgical setting on the Feast of the Nativity of the Baptist, I doubt anyone's mind went to the mysteries of Baptism! Perhaps someone will do some research to find out what it was doing there in the first place, but a much more interesting facet of Guerrero's motet is its promotion of the doctrine, which was a point of pride in Seville. I notice that he failed to mention that the motet generated no less than 6 imitation Masses by Spanish, Portuguese composers (along with the Flemish example he cites). In particular, the Missa Ave virgo sanctissima by Juan de Esquivel is particularly interesting. BTW the modern American premiere of this Mass was done at my own wedding, but I digress. Esquivel was so enamored with the motet that he quotes it in his own motet, Ave Maria Domini mei mater, which he assigns to the Feast of the Conception (won't be Immaculate until 1858). In a paper I will present to the Renaissance Society of America in April, I will show that these quotations and the similarity in structure were meant to convey a personal support for the IC at a time when promotion of it was banned by papal bull. In a sense, this connection between these two motets relates to Candelaria's excellent relation of Peñalosa's Mass and De tous bien plaine.

Michael, you MUST start submitting to SACRED MUSIC.

After reading and re-reading the Stump article, I must say that I am puzzled as to why she didn't give us any particulars as to why exactly she is so enamored with the music of the Saint Louis Jesuits. She had such a great opportunity to speak to us and convince us of any particular pieces that we should all use... or of particular reasons why we should change a possibly negative opinion of SLJ music.

Her ending points about being charitable to others in the differences in taste we have regarding music are things we should all remember. After 40 years of some really poor music in our churches, how can we expect those who don't have a particular interest in music to have well-formed musical consciences? I do think that her points could have been made in much fewer pages, however :) I got a bit tired with her wandering thought processes... I was wondering if she got lost in what she was defending along the way...

The editorial decision to print it showed great charity, I think. Not being a member of NPM, I am wondering if articles more like those in Sacred Music are ever included in those journals? Having the opportunity to read diverse opinions is good for us, after all. Probably it would generate the same type of lively conversation among NPM musicians if a Sacred Music article made print there... (just speculating).

OK.. back to winter.

I just listend to Messiaen's 'Quatuor pour la Fin du Temps'. It is simply a dazzling work. Pristine, clear, light, sharp and refined. ...and the typical French closed chordal harmonies that are so warm and intimate. I will have to reread the article and leave a comment after I look deeper into his theory.

So much of the music of the 70's and 80's in the secular Universities (that I was attending) was grasping for music similar in this vein, but it was all music for music's sake; experimental, scientific, cold and sterile. It was all stillbirth. It had no faith basis. Music devoid of faith (or knowing how to speak in the tongue of men and angels without love) is 'just a noisy gong and a clanging symbol', and I was witness to that vaccuum in our culture during those difficult years.

I remember one of my colleagues playing some "imitative bird" pieces when I was studying organ in the mid 70's, but had not ever heard this piece till now. I wish I had thought to look it up sooner.

Thank you SM for pointing us in this direction.